^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  "^ 

Presented    bT^ro^  TSTB .  V/^u  <:Ar\\  A  O  ,"X)  ■ 

&r/w« *=^  r         / 


J)r.  §riggs' 


'^iblical  ]fieoIog2 


jraced  to  its 
(jrganiflc 

Principle 


BY 

Robert  Watts,  D.  D.,  UUD. 

BEliFAST. 


DR.  BRIGGS'  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY 


TRACED  TO 


ITS  ORGflNIFIG  PRINCIPLE. 


EGBERT  WATTS,  D.  D. 


(Reprinted  from  the  Presbyterian  QuarterU/. ) 


ItlCHOND,  VA.:  N] 

WinTTET  A:  SUKll'EHSON,  PuBIJSHEn^.  ' 

1892. 


DK.   13RIGGS'   BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY  TRACED  TO 
ITS  ORGANIFIC   PRIX(UPLE. 

TiiK  appointniGiit  of  a  professor  in  a  tl<eolo<,ML'iil  institution  is  a 
transaction  the  importance  of  which  it  would  he  difficult  to  over- 
estimate. As  it  is  in  such  institutions  that  those  who  arc  to  unfold 
to  men  the  unsearchal)le  riches  of  Christ  are  u.-jually  trained,  it  is 
manifest  that  all  such  appointments  must  affect  for  good  or  evil 
the  vital  interests  of  the  kini^dom  of  God.  It  is  this  conviction 
which  has  stirred  to  her  |)rofoundest  depths  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  on  the  apj)ointment  of  Dr. 
Charles  Au<^u8tus  Brii^ga  to  the  newly  erected  ('hair  of  Biblical 
Theology  in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  Impressed 
withasense  of  the  importance  of  the  i)ranch  of  theological  study  with 
which  the  occupant  of  the  chair  has  to  deal,  and  cognizant  oi  tlie 
views  of  the  person  selected  by  the  Board  of  Direct(»r8  to  till  it, 
the  church  has  taken  the  alarm,  and  in  her  late  Assembly  has 
declined,  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  to  apj>rove  of  the  ap- 
pointment. As  the  directors,  after  taking  legal  advice,  have  re- 
solved to  adhere  to  their  action  in  tilling  the  chair,  it  is  likely  the 
case  will  be  transferred  to  the  civil  courts. 

The  wide-spread  interest  taken  in  the  case  on  i)oth  sides  of  the 
Atlantic,  the  character  of  the  principles  avowed  by  the  newly- 
appointed  professor  in  his  Inaugural,  and  the  re-pid)lication  t>f 
tiie  Inaugural,  together  with  defences  of  its  teaching  by  two 
professors  of  the  Lane  Theological  Seminary,  Cincinnati,  with 
a  commendatory  introduciion  by  Professor  Bruce,  of  the  Free 
Church  College.  Glasgow,  may  serve  as  a  sufficient  apology  for 
an  examimition  of  the  doctrines  thus  opeidy  proclaime<l. 

As  my  chief  8ul>ject  is  tlu;  Inaugural  I  shall  iu»t  enter  at  largo 
upon  a  criticism  of  the  papers  furnished  by  the  Lane  professors, 
whom  Dr.  Bruce  pronounces  as  men  of  liglit  ami  lea^liIlL^     Tin- 


4  DR.  BRIGG8    BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY, 

theory  of  inspiration  thej  advocate  is  not  new,  nor  is  there  any- 
thing novel  in  their  advocacy  of  it.  Tiieir  avowed  object  is  to 
prove  the  errancy  of  Scripture.  The  theory  is  simply  this,  that 
the  men  who  wrote  the  Scriptures  were  gifted  with  an  indefinable 
species  of  inspiration,  somewhat  akin  to  that  possessed  by  Shake- 
speare, Milton,  or  Tennyson,  as  theologians,  but  not  as  historians, 
scientists,  geographers,  astronomers,  etc.  These  apologists  not 
only  look  unmoved  upon  the  attempts  of  the  enemies  of  the  Bible  to 
make  good  their  charges  of  errancy  against  it  within  these  depart- 
ments, but  take  sides  with  them  and  exercise  their  gifts  and  draw 
upon  the  resources  of  their  scholarship,  to  discover,  and  array 
before  tlie  general  public,  what  they  regard  as  evidence  of  scien- 
tific and  historical  mistakes  and  of  sanctioned  immoralities,  or,  as 
Dr.  Bruce  has  expressed  it,  of  "  crude  morality." 

It  is  not  difficult  to  see  the  drift  and  tendency  of  this  theorj' 
and  its  concessions.  All  that  the  adversary  of  the  Bible  has  to  do 
is  to  deal  with  it  as  Dr.  Duff  and  others  have  done  with  tlie  sacred 
books  of  the  Hindus.  He  has  simply  to  establish  against  it  the 
existence  of  errors  within  the  spheres  in  question.  Having  done 
tliis,  his  work  is  done.  He  can  say  to  these  apologists,  as  Duff 
said  to  the  Hindus,  "If  your  sacred  writers  have  made  mistakes 
within  the  sphere  of  the  Natural,  and  in  regard  to  things  subject 
to  human  observation,  what  right  have  you  to  claim  acceptance 
for  their  teaching  within  the  sphere  of  the  Supernatural  ?  If 
they  have  proved  themselves  unworthy  of  trust  in  the  former,  who 
will  credit  their  testimony  in  the  latter?"  Passing  then,  at  once, 
from  further  notice  of  these  Lane  essays,  let  us  examine  the  Inau- 
gural which  gave  occasion  to  their  production,  and  which  has  led 
Dr.  Bruce  to  introduce  both  it  and  them  to  the  churches  of  these 
lands. 

Revealed  Tlieology  may  be  divided  into  Exegetical  Theology, 
Biblical  Theology,  and  Systematic  Theology.  Exegetical  The- 
ology is  so  designated  because  it  treats  of  the  exegesis  or  interpre- 
tation of  the  Sacred  Text.  Biblical  Theology  has  for  its  object 
the  tracing  of  the  genesis  and  development  of  the  religion  of  tlie 
Bil)le,  in  a  purely  historical  manner,  as  it  presents  itself  in  both 
Testaments.     Systematic  Tlieology  aims  at  the  scientific  exhibi- 


DR.    BR1GG8    BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY.  5 

tion  of  the  knowledge  of  God  and  tlie  things  of  God,  pointing  out 
the  mutual  harmonious  relations  subsisting  among  the  truths  it 
embraces  and  their  harmony  with  the  revelation  made  tiirough 
the  light  of  nature,  so  far  as  it  treats  of  the  same  sul)ject6. 

It  is  with  the  second  of  these  subjects  that  the  Ciiair  in  question 
h;is  to  deal,  and  Dr.  Briggs  very  properly  tai<es  it  as  tiie  themo 
of  his  Inaugural.     It  is  not  unnatural  that  he  sliould  have  formed 
a  very  high  estimate  of  his  subject,  or  that  he  sliould  enter  upon 
the  discussion  of  it  with  enthusiasm.     He  might,  however,  have 
done  both  without  speaking  in  terms  of  disparagement  of  creeds 
and  dogmatic  systems.     In  his  letter  of  thanks  to   the  Board  of 
Directors  (pp.  6-7),  we  liave  the  following  comparison  instituted 
between    Biblical  theology   and  ecclesiasticism  and  dogmatism — 
"Biblical  6ch(»lars  have  been  long  held   in    Itondage   to  ecclesias- 
ticism and  dogmatism.     But  modern   Biblical  criticism  has  won 
the   battle  of  freedom.     The   accumulations  of  long  periods  of 
traditional    speculation    and    dogmatism   have    been    in  a    large 
measure  removed,  and  the  Bible  itself  stands  before  the  men  of 
our  time  in  a  commanding  position,  such  as  it  has  never  enjoyed 
before.     On  all  sides  it  is  asked,  not  what  do  the  creeds  teach, 
what  do  the  theologians  say,  what  is  the  authority  of  the  church, 
but  what  does  the  Bible  itself  teach  us?     It  is  the  office  of  Bibli- 
cal theology  to  answer  this  question.     It  is  the  culmination  of  the 
work  of  exegesis.     It  rises  on  a  complete  induction  of  all  the  de- 
partments of  Biblical  study  to  a  comprehensive  grasp  of  the  Bible 
as  a  whole,  in  the  unity  and  variety  of  the  sum  of  its  teaching. 
It  draws  the  line  with  the  teaching  of  the  Bible.     It  fences  off 
from  the  Scriptures  all  the  speculations,  all  the  dogmatical  elabo- 
rations, all  the  doctrinal  adaptations  that  have  been   made  in  the 
history  of  doctrine  in  the  church.     It  does  not  deny   their  i)ro- 
priety  and  importance,  but  It  insists  upcm  the  three-fold  distinction 
as  necessary  to  truth  and  theological  honesty,  that  the  theology  of 
the  Biljle  is  one  thing,  the  only  infallible  authority,  the  theoh»gy 
of  the   creeds  is  another  thing,  having  simply  ccclesia.-tical  au- 
thority, and  the  theology  of  the  theologians  or  dogmatic  theology 
is  a  third   thing,  which   has   no    more   authority    than    any  ••ther 
system  of  human  constructiop.     Now,  liiblic^il   theology  aims  to 


t)  DR.  BRIGGS    BIBLICAL  TIIKOLOGY. 

limit  itself  strictly  to  the  theology  of  the  BiMe  itself.  Biblical 
theologians  are  fallible  men,  and  doubtless  it  is  true  that  they  err 
in  their  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  as  have  others,  but  it  is 
tlie  aim  of  tlie  discipline  to  give  the  tlieology  of  the  Bible  pure 
and  simple,  and  the  inductive  and  historical  methods  that  deter- 
mine the  working  of  tlie  department  are  certainly  favorable  to  an 
objective  presentation  of  the  sul)ject,  and  are  unfavorable  to  the 
intrusion  of  subjective  fancies  and  circumstantial  considerations." 
The  prominent  points  of  the  claim  here  set  up  on  belialf  of 
Bil)lical  theology  as  distinguished  from  the  teaching  of  creeds 
and  dogmatic  theology  raise  very  naturally  the  question,  "  Is 
Biblical  theology  itself  exempt  from  the  objections  here  preferred 
against  all  dogmatism,  and,  if  so,  how  has  this  exemption  been 
secured  ?"  The  writer  admits  that  Biblical  theologians  are  falli- 
ble men,  and  that  it  is  doubtless  true  they  err  in  their  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  as  have  others.  How  does  it  come  to  pass, 
then,  that  their  interpretations  of  the  Scriptures  are  a  safer  guide 
to  the  study  of  the  Bil)le  than  the  formulated  teaching  of  ecclesi- 
astical creeds  and  the  systems  of  dogmatic  theologians?  It  is  no 
answer  to  this  question  to  say,  as  we  are  told,  that  "it  is  the  aim 
of  the  discipline  to  give  the  theology  of  the  Bible  pure  and 
simple,"  and  that  "the  inductive  and  historical  methods  that  de- 
termine the  working  of  the  department  are  certainly  favorable  to 
an  objective  presentation  of  tlie  subject,  and  are  unfavorable  to 
the  intrusion  of  subjective  fancies  and  circumstantial  considera- 
tions." This  is  no  answer  to  the  questions  regarding  the  fact 
and  the  mode  of  the  exemption  of  Biblical  theology  from  the 
errors  charged  against  the  creeds  and  systems  of  dogmatic 
theology.  The  creeds  and  dogmatic  systems  aim  to  give  the 
theology  of  the  Bible  pure  and  simple,  and  they  follow  the  induc- 
tive methods  as  well  as  the  system  advocated  l)y  Biblical  theo- 
logians. Nor  are  they  forgetful  of  the  historical  order  observed 
in  the  revelation  of  the  economy  of  redemption,  under  diverse 
and  successive  dispensations.  There  is  no  claim  that  can  be  ad- 
vanced, on  the  grounds  here  specified,  that  can  be  regarded  as  the 
exclusive  property  of  Biblical  theology.  To  warrant  the  claim 
to  preeminence  it  must  be  shown  that   the  Biblical  theologian  is 


DR.  BRIGG8    BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY.  7 

a  better  logician,  and,  therefore,  less  liable  to  make  mistakes  in  bis 
deductions  tliaii  the  authors  of  the  creeds  and  the  theological  dog- 
matic systems.  It  is  admitted  that  both  exercise  the  logical 
faculty,  and  deduce  from  the  sacred  text  doctrines  wliich  they  do 
not  find  made  ready  to  their  hand.  Wherein,  then,  lie  the  safe- 
guards which  distinguish  the  theological  inductions  of  the  Biblical 
theologian  in  point  of  purity,  or  any  other  Scriptural  quality, 
from  the  inductions  of  the  men  who,  in  the  exerijise  of  this  same 
inductive  facult}^  have  framed  the  creeds,  or  the  dogmatic  sys- 
tems whicli  liuve  appeared  in  the  iiistory  of  the  cliurch?  Mani- 
festly the  safeguard  is  not  to  be  sought  in  greater  purity  of  aim, 
and  it  certainly  cannot  be  claimed  tliat  the  sciiools  represented  by 
Dr.  Briggs  have  proved  tliemselves  possessed  of  logical  powers 
transcending  those  manifested  by  the  master  minds  wiio  have 
given  to  the  church  her  creeds  and  her  carefully-l)alanced  systems 
of  theology. 

It  had  been  wiser  for  the  interests  of  the  higher  criticism  if  Dr. 
Briggs  had  not  instituted  comparisons  upon  these  points.  He 
speaks  of  the  Biblical  tlieology  as  one  unfavorable  to  the  intrusion 
of  sul)jective  fancies,  while  tlie  higher  criticism  which  has  furnished 
him  with  a  Bible  which  he  acknowledges  is  so  diflFerent  from  the 
Bible  of  his  earlier  years  as  to  be  to  iiiin  anew  book,  is  built  upon 
the  subjective  fancies  of  the  higher  critics,  no  two  of  them  agreeing 
in  their  subjective  imaginings.  The  Bible  these  men  have  given 
the  author  of  the  Inaugural  is  a  Bil)le  transfigured  from  3'ear  to 
year  as  new  critical  conjurers  have  arisen  to  bewitch  their  votaries 
by  their  enchantments.  The  Biblical  theology  basetl  on  this  ever- 
changing  Bible  should  be  careful  about  instituting  invidious  com- 
parisons. Its  historical  nictiiod  is  subvei'sive  of  all  theology, 
whether  Biblical,  symbolical,  or  dogmatical.  One  wiio  has  taken  the 
trouble  of  reckoning  the  number  of  theories  invented  by  tlieao 
higher  critics  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  books  of  the  Bible 
puts  them  down  at  747 — 008  of  the  Old  Testament  and  144  of  the 
New — and  affirms  that  they  are,  with  few  exceptions,  either  dead 
or  moribund.  Is  it  from  a  Bible  manipulated  l)y  such  theorisers 
that  our  Biblical  theologians  are  to  deduce,  and  present  to  the 
Church  of  God,  "the  theology  of  the  Bilde  pure  and  simple"! 


b  DR.  BRIGGS    BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

Those  who  identify  themselves  with  the  critical  system  so  fertile 
of  ever-diesolving  theories,  might  be  a  little  more  modest  in  criti- 
cising the  symbolism  or  the  dogmatism  of  the  churches,  and  less 
forward  in  claiming  for  themselves  the  championship  and  guard- 
ianship of  the  sacred  oracles  and  the  key  to  unlock  their  myste- 
ries. One  would  think  that  an  indispensable  preliminary  to  all 
such  criticisms  and  claims  would  be  a  convention  of  these  higher 
critics  to  settle  the  fundamental  vital  question,  the  question  of 
questions.  Which  of  all  the  new  Bibles  which  the  higher  criticism 
has  produced  is  to  be  the  Bible  of  the  future,  from  which  the 
Biblical  theologian  is  to  deduce  his  Biblical  theology  ?  Until  this 
is  done  his  work  cannot  begin ;  and  Dr.  Briggs  was  rather  prema- 
ture in  undertaking,  even  at  the  call  of  the  venerable  Directors  of 
the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  the  task  of  erecting  the  temple 
of  Biblical  theology  in  that  institution  until  the  higher  critics 
shall  have  agreed  about  the  foundation  on  which  he  is  to  build. 

But  let  us  test  the  claim  put  forth  for  Biblical  theology  by  our 
newly  inaugurated  Biblical  theologian  by  a  specimen  of  his  own 
workmanship.  On  page  50  of  the  Inaugural,  speaking  of  man's 
original  state,  he  charges  Jew  and  Christian  alike  with  exaggerat- 
ing man's  original  innocence  and  depreciating  his  ultimate  perfec- 
tion. "  Protestant  theologians,"  he  says,  "  have  exaggerated  the 
original  righteousness  in  order  to  magnify  the  guilt  of  our  first 
parents.  They  thus  come  in  conflict  with  ethical  and  religious 
philosophy.  The  Bible  is  not  responsible  for  these  exaggerations- 
The  original  man  was  innocent  and  sinless,  but  not  possessed  of 
that  righteousness  and  moral  excellence  that  comes  only  by  di- 
cipline  and  heavenly  training."  Confounding  a  test  of  federal 
fidelity  with  a  means  of  grace,  he  adds,  "  The  temptation  was  a 
necessary  means  of  grace.  Man  did  not  make  his  progress  in  the 
straiglit  lines  of  faith  and  obedience,  but  in  the  curved  line  of  sin 
and  redemption." 

One  of  the  greatest  theologians  of  our  age  has  remarked,  "  Let 
a  man  tell  me  what  his  philosophy  is,  and  I  shall  ask  him  no  ques- 
tions about  his  theology."  Dr.  Briggs  has  told  us  in  these  few 
sentences  what  his  ethical  and  religions  philosophy  is,  and  has,  at 
the  same  time,  told  us  how  it  has  affected  his  views  on  one  of  the 


DR.  BRIGGS'  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY.  9 

cardinal  points  of  Protestant  theology,  viz.,  the  question  of  man's 
original  state.     He  rejects  the  Protestant  doctrine  on  this  (jiies- 
tion  because  it  comes  in  conflict  with  iiis  ethical  and  religious  phi- 
losophy.    His  reason  for  rejecting  the  Protestant  doctrine  is  that 
it  teaches  that  tlie  original  man  was  created  in  knowledge,  right- 
eousness and  hoHness,  while  his  ethical  and  religious  philosophy 
teaches  that  such  an  estate  comes  only  througli  discipline  and 
lieavenly  training.     Such  is  the  confession  made  hy  our  new  Bib- 
lical theologian,  who  tells  us  that  "the  aim  of  his  discipline  is  to 
give  the  theology  of  the  Bible  pure  and  simple,  ami  to  fence  off 
from  the  Scriptures  all  the  speculations,  all  the  dogmatic  elabora- 
tions, all  the  doctrinal  adaptations  that  liave  been  made  in  the  his- 
tory of  doctrine  in  the  church."     Is  it  not  singular  that,  after 
starting  with  such  purity  of  aim,  and  after  "  fencing  off  from  the 
Scriptures  the  speculations  and  dogmatic  elaborations,  and  all  the 
doctrinal  adaptations  that  have  been  made  in  the  history  of  doc 
trine  in  the  church,"  he 'should  have  left  a  gap  in  ins  fence  for  the 
admission  of  a  species  of  ethical  and  religious  philosophy  which 
from  the  day  of  Pelagius,  its  author,  has  done  more  to  mar  the 
peace  of  the  church  and  corrupt  her  theology  than  any  other  prin- 
ciple that  could  be  named?     The  ethical  and  religious  philosophy 
which  he  has  admitted  through  this  gap  is  neither  more  nor  less 
than  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Pelagian  heresy,  which  has, 
in  one  shape  or  other,  veiled  or  unmasked,  inspired  and  armed  for 
the  conflict  all  the  opponents  of  the  Augustinian  and  Calvinistic 
theology  from  the  days  of  Pelagius  till  the  present.     IIow  is  it 
that  in  fenciuir  off  all  traditional  dogmatism  he  has  reserved  an 
opening  for  this  traditional  Pelagian  "ethical  anil  religious  phi- 
losophy?"     It  is  manifest  that    by   the  admission   of    it  he  has 
gainsaid  all  that  he  has  professed  about  the  high  "aim  of  his  dis- 
cipline to  give  the  theology  of  the  Bible  pure  and  simple."      lie 
will  admit  no  theological  dogma,  nor  will  he  accept  of  any  doc- 
rine  deduced  from  the  Bible  by  man  which  comes  in  conflict  with 
this  "ethical  and  religious  philosophy."     In  a  word,  he  haa  aban- 
doned the  position  that  the  Bible  alone  is  to  luive  voic^  in  deter- 
mining his  doctrinal  deductions  from  its  contents.     The  Lydian 
stone  by  which  all  its  teachings  are  to  be  tried,  and  in  conformity 


10  DR.  BRIGGS'  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY.  v 

with  which  they  are  to  be  formulated,  is  the  principle  that  "  right- 
eousness comes  only  by  discipline  and  heavenly  training."  This 
is  the  generative  principle  of  his  theological  system,  and  we  must 
conclude  that  it  will  govern  him  in  all  his  utterances  as  professor 
of  Biblical  theology. 

But  leaving  him  to  reconcile  the  claim  advanced  to  absolute 
Biblical  purity  of  aim  and  method,  with  the  admission  of  this 
Pelagian  factor,  let  us  consider  its  bearing  upon  the  leading  facts 
and  doctrines  of  the  Sacred  Kecord.  How  must  it  affect  (1)  the 
Scripture  account  of  the  creation  of  the  first  Adam ;  (2)  the 
account  given  of  the  creation  of  the  second  Adam;  (3)  the  account 
given  of  the  estate  in  which  men  are  born  into  this  world  ;  (4)  the 
bearing  of  this  principle  upon  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  new 
birth ;  and  (5)  its  bearing  upon  the  doctrine  of  sanctification  ? 
Having  examined  the  theological  consequences  of  this  principle, 
it  will  be  in  place  to  consider  its  claims  to  take  rank  as  a  principle 
or  law  of  "  ethical  and  religious  philosophy." 

1.  Let  us  see  how  this  principle  must  affect  one's  views  regard- 
ing man's  original  state.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  "  God 
created  man,  male  and  female,  in  his  own  image,  after  his  own 
likeness."  Dr.  Briggs  objects  to  the  Protestant  interpretation  of 
this  account  of  the  creation  of  man,  which  infers  from  it,  that 
man  was  created  in  the  possession  of  righteousness  and  moral  ex- 
cellence. This,  he  alleges,  comes  only  by  discipline  and  heavenly 
training.  There  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  antagonism  between 
the  principle  in  question  and  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  estate 
in  which  our  first  parents  were  created.  That  doctrine  is  briefly 
stated  in  the  Shorter  Catechism  of  the  Westminister  divines  in 
answer  to  the  question,  "How  did  God  create  man?"  The  an- 
swer given  is,  "God  created  man,  male  and  female,'  after 
his  own  image,  in  knowledge,  righteousness  and  holiness,  with 
dominion  over  the  creatures."  Such  is  the  Protestant  doc- 
trine of  the  moral  state  of  man  in  virtue  of  the  creative  act, 
and  it  is  manifest  that  no  one  holding  the  principle  that  such 
moral  qualities  "come  only  by  discipline  and  heavenly  training," 
could,  conscientiously,  accept  the  Protestant  doctrine  on  this 
point.     How  Dr.  Briggs  managed  to  hold  the  one  and  subscribe 


DR.  BEI0G8    BIBLICAL  TFIKOLOOY.  11 

the  other  is  a  problem.  According  to  the  Inaugural,  mans' 
original  estate,  so  far  as  "righteousness  and  moral  excellence" 
are  concerned,  was  one  of  mere  negation,  lie  did  not  posscBB 
such  righteousness  or  moral  excellence,  and  was  innocent  before 
God  without  it.  According  to  the  Standards,  subscribed  only  a 
few  minutes  previously,  our  first  parents  were  created  in  God's 
own  image  and  likeness  in  possession  of  knowledge,  righteousness 
and  holiness.  Dr.  Briggs  alleges  that  this  is  a  Protestant  exag- 
geration of  man's  original  estate,  and  rejects  it  because  it  is  (as  it 
un(juestionably  is)  in  conflict  with  his  ethical  and  religious  philo- 
sophy. It  would  be  interesting  to  know  by  what  species  of 
ethical  and  religious  philosophy  he  justified  himself  in  subscribing 
that  which  he  must  have  looked  upon,  at  the  time  he  subscribed 
it,  as  in  conflict  with  ethical  and  religious  philosophy.  lie  must 
have  had  some  way  of  reconciling  his  previous  profession  and  his 
subsequent  utterance,  but  it  must  be  a  way  unknown  to  ordinary 
"  ethical  and  religious  philosophy." 

l>ut  let  us  see  whether  the  Protestant  doctrine  on  this  subject  is 
in  conflict  with  genuine  Biijlical  theolog}'.  If,  as  that  doctrine 
teaches  and  the  Bible  expressly  aflBrms,  man  was  created  in  (iod's 
own  image  and  likeness,  what  reason  is  there  for  alleging  that  this 
image  and  likeness  did  not  embrace  "righteousness  and  moral  ex- 
cellence?" Is  it  possible  to  conceive  of  a  moral  agent  possessing 
such  an  image  and  j'et  being  destitute  of  these  (pialities  and  exist- 
ing in  a  merely  negative  state  of  so-called  innocency  without  bias 
of  inherent  principle  toward  good  or  evil?  In  so  far  as  such  a  one 
lacks  these  (jualities,  in  so  far  does  he  lack  confornjity  to  the 
Divine  image.  If  we  are  to  take  the  testimony  of  the  Bible 
"pure  and  simple"  as  our  authority  on  this  vital  point,  it  is  in 
these  qualities  that  the  Divine  image  preeminently  consists,  for 
when  through  the  provisions  of  the  economy  of  grace,  the  lost 
imago  is  restored,  the  subject  of  the  restoration  is  "renewed  in 
knowledge  after  the  image  of  Ilim  that  created  him"  (Col.  iii.  10), 
and  "after  God  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness" 
)Eph.  iv.  24).  Manifestly  these  passages  tejich  that  the  image 
of  God  embraces  the  very  qualities  which  Dr.  Briggs'  "ethical 
and  religious  philosophy  "  excludes  as  unattaiiuible  sjive  through 
discipline  and  heavenly  training." 


12  DR.  BRIGGS  .BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

2.  This  "  ethical  and  religious  philosophy"  is  clearly  at  war  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation.  The  expression,  image  of  God,  is 
employed  in  Scripture  to  indicate  the  transcendent  moral  beauty 
and  perfection  of  the  Son  of  God.  He  is  "  the  image  of  the  in 
visible  God"  (Col.  i,  15).  He  is  "the  briglitness  of  his  glory  and 
the  express  image  of  his  essence."  (Heb.  i.  8.)  Are  we  then  to 
eliminate  from  this  image  of  God.  as  exhibited  in  the  Incarnate 
Son,  whom  to  see  was  to  see  the  Father,  the  qualities  of  "righte- 
ousness and  moral  excellence,"  because  the  possession  of  such  quali- 
ties prior  to  his  moral  activities  would  be  out  of  keeping  with 
Dr.  ]3riggs'  "ethical  and  religious  philosophy?"  It  is  true  the 
Scriptures  speak  of  him  as  increasing  in  wisdom  and  stature  and 
in  favor  with  God  and  man  (Luke  ii.  52),  but  they  never  speak  of 
him  as  increasing  in  holiness,  or  growing  in  moral  purity.  The 
Pelagian  canon  excludes  all  such  subjective  states  as  impossible  in 
a  moral  agent,  until  he  exercises  his  moral  faculties,  and  Dr. 
Briggs  is  not  at  liberty  to  limit  its  operation  to  any  particular 
class  of  moral  qualities.  If,  therefore,  moral  excellence  includes 
moral  purity,  this  "  ethical  and  religious  philosophy "  must  elimi- 
nate moral  purity  from  the  estate  of  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  as  gene- 
rated by  the  immediate  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  under  the 
overshadowing  power  of  the  Highest!  Prior  to  the  exercise  of 
his  mental  and  moral  faculties  as  a  man,  however,  even  from  his 
inception  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin,  the  Scriptures  teach  that  he 
was  holy,  a  moral  quality  which  according  to  Dr.  Briggs,  comes 
only  by  discipline  and  heavenly  training.  This  was  evidently  the 
doctrine  propounded  by  the  Angel  Gabriel  at  the  Annunciation. 
"The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee,  therefore  also  that  holy  thing 
which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God." 
(Luke  i.  35.)  The  ethical  and  religious  philosophy  which  nega- 
tives the  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  creation  of  man  must  also  set 
aside  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  tlie  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
God.  And  this  is  Biblical  theology,  forsooth !  If  Adam  could 
not  have  been  created  in  a  state  of  positive  holiness,  and  could  not 
have  possessed  these  qualities  which  enter  into  the  conception  of 
moral  excellence,  for  the  reason  assigned,  viz. — that  such  qualities 


DR.  BRIGG8    BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY.  13 

"come  only  by  discipline  and  lieavenly  training,"  it  must  follow 
(for  the  Pelagian  canon  will  allow  of  no  exception)  that  prior  to 
the  exercise  of  his  moral  faculties  under  "discipline  and  heaveidy 
training,"  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  was  not  possessed  of  righteous- 
ness or  moral  excellence. 

Here,  then,  are  two  of  the  plainest  doctrines  of  the  Bible  which 
cannot  abide  the  test  of  this  Pelagian  philosopliy,  and  which  must 
be  excluded  from  the  future  system  of  Biblical  theology  tliat  is  to 
be  elaborated  by  Professor  Briggs  and  inculcated  upon  such  of 
the  future  ministry  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  may  be  com- 
mitted to  his  care.  If  these  youths  are  to  accept  his  teaching  and 
recognize  the  ethical  and  religious  philosopliy  from  which  it  flows, 
they  nnist  go  forth  as  heralds  of  this  novel  Biblical  theology  and 
inform  the  people  that  neither  the  first  Adam  nor  the  second 
Adam  was  created  "  in  knowledge,  righteousness  or  holiness," 
and  that  these  moral  qualities  in  both  cases  were  the  outcome  of 
the  exercise  of  their  moral  faculties  under  discipline  and  heavenly 
training. 

3.  Equally  manifest  must  be  the  bearing  of  this  same  "ethical 
and  religions  philosopliy"  upon  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  viewed 
simply  as  a  subjective  state.  The  estate  into  which  the  Fall 
brought  mankind  is  an  estate  of  sin  and  misery,  and  the  sinful- 
ness of  this  estate  consists  in  "the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the 
want  of  original  righteousness,  and  the  corruption  of  our  whole 
nature,  commonly  called  original  sin,  together  with  all  actual 
transgressions  which  proceed  from  it."  The  doctrine  propounded 
liere  is,  that  men  enter  this  world  in  a  morally  corrupt  state,  and 
that  this  estate  is  not  the  product,  but  the  cause,  of  all  actual 
transgressions.  Now  the  question  here  is,  can  this  doctrine  abide 
the  application  of  the  Pelagian  test?  If  the  moral  qualities  of 
righteousness  and  moral  excellence  cannot  be  concrete,  and  must 
be  the  result  of  a  prior  exercise  of  the  moral  faculties,  will  it  not 
necessarily  follow  that  the  evil  (jualities  embraced  under  tlie  con- 
ception of  moral  corruption,  must  be  the  offspring  of  the  imlawful 
and  vicious  exercise  of  these  same  jiowers  of  the  souW  If  good 
moral  qualities  cannot  come  into  being  save  through  the  exercise 
of  the  moral  powers,  on  no  principle  of  ethical  or  religious  phi- 


14  DR.  BRIGGS'  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

losophj  can  it  be  shown  that  bad  moral  qualities  can  originate  in 
the  soul  of  a  moral  agent  until  that  agent  shall  have  performed 
immoral  acts.  If,  as  the  Pelagian  maxim  teaches,  moral  character 
be  a  thing  of  acquisition,  the  product  of  moral  action,  no  child 
born  into  the  world  can  at  its  birth,  and  prior  to  the  exercise  of 
its  moral  powers,  be  regarded  as  existing,  as  our  Standards  teach 
it  does,  in  a  state  of  moral  corruption.  Pelagius  and  Celestius 
taught,  that  "omne  hoiiuin  et  maliwi  quo  vel  laudahiles  vet  vitu- 
perdbiles  suvius,  non  nohiscum,  oritur,  sed  agitur  a  ?iohis — et  ut 
sine  virtute,  ita  et  sine  vitio  2)^"0C7'eamur.''''  That  is,  all  good  or 
evil,  on  account  of  which  we  are  worthy  of  praise  or  blame,  does 
not  come  into  being  with  us,  l)ut  is  the  result  of  our  own  action 
.  .  .  and  as  we  are  procreated  without  virtue  so  are  we  also  with- 
out vice.  Such  is  Dr.  Briggs'  "ethical  and  religious  philosophy' 
as  expounded  by  its  authors,  and  there  is  no  need  of  argument,  to 
satisfy  any  person  of  ordinary  intelligence,  that  it  sets  aside  the 
Scripture  doctrine  of  original  sin  as  set  forth  in  the  Standards  of 
the  Westminster  divines.  Dr.  Briggs  by  his  act  of  subscription 
proposed  to  hold  the  latter,  and  in  his  Inaugural  avowed  the 
former,  as  the  organific  principle  of  his  Biblical  theology,  and  we 
must  leave  him  to  solve  the  "ethical  and  religious"  problem  cre- 
ated by  his  action  on  the  very  solemn  occasion  of  his  inaugura- 
tion. Perhaps  he  may  have  satisfied  himself,  as  Mr.  George 
Ward,  Fellow  of  Balliol  College,  Oxford,  one  of  the  principal 
leaders  in  the  Oxford  movement,  did,  by  signing  the  Standards  in 
a  "non-natural  sense"  which  were  all  one  with  signing  them  in  a 
sense  not  natural. 

4.  But  the  difficulties  multiply  and  are  intensified,  once  we  en- 
ter the  sphere  of  the  application  of  redemption,  and  consider  the 
bearing  of  this  "  ethical  and  religious  philosophy  "  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  regeneration.  As  stated  in  the  Shorter  Catechism,  the 
Spirit  not  only  convinces  us  of  sin  and  misery,  but  also  enlightens 
our  minds  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  renews  our  wills,  and 
both  persuades  and  enables  us  to  embrace  Jesus  Christ  as  he  is 
offered  to  us  in  the  gospel.  There  could  be  no  more  truly  Bibli- 
cal summary  of  the  points  embraced  in  the  doctrine  of  regenera- 
tion than  is  given  in  the  above  account  of  effectual  calling.     By 


DR.  BRIGG8     BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY.  16 

tlie  direct  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  acting  correlatively  to  the 
divine  objective  revelation,  the  mind  of  the  sinner  has  such  a  view 
of  his  sin  and  moral  wretchedness,  and  siu-h  a  view  of  Christ  as 
he  is  offered  in  the  gospel,  as  lie  could  never  acquire  through  any 
process  of  discipline  or  heaveidy  training.  Nor  is  tiiis  all.  Not 
only  is  his  mind  enlightened,  but  iiis  will  is  renewed,  and  he  is 
persuaded  and  enabled  to  embrace  the  Saviour  thus  revealed  by 
the  supernatural  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  representation 
is  in  full  accord  with  our  Saviour's  own  account  of  this  funda- 
mental change,  in  his  conversation  with  Nicodenuis — John  iii. 
3-5.  In  tlie  third  verse  he  informs  Nicodemus  of  the  necessity 
of  this  radical  change  in  order  to  see  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  in 
the  fifth  verse  he  informs  him  of  the  necessity  of  it  in  order  to 
eyiter  the  kingdom.  In  a  word,  both  the  intellect  and  the  loill  must 
undergo  this  change.  He  conditions  the  spiritual  action  of  both 
the  cognitive  and  conative  powers  of  the  soul  upon  the  previous  ac- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  he  likens  to  a  new  genesis  of  the  man. 

Our  Saviour  was  evidently  not  of  Dr.  Briggs'  opinion,  that 
moral  character  cannot  originate  in  a  moral  agent  prior  to  his  own 
moral  activities,  or  that  "rigliteousness  and  moral  excellence  come 
only  by  discipline  and  heavenly  training."  His  verdict  on  this 
point  is  that  prior  to  a  change,  which  the  Spirit  of  God  alone  can 
effect,  a  change  which  is  equivalent  to  a  re-creation  of  the  soul  in 
all  its  powers,  the  sinner  can  have  no  right  apprehension  of  divine 
things,  and  can  have  no  saving  knowledge  of  tiiem,  or  desire  to 
possess  them. 

This  doctrine  prevades  both  Testaments.  Tims — Jeremiah, 
xxxi.  33;  Heb.  viii.  10 — God  promises  to  make  a  new  covenant 
with  his  people,  putting  his  law  in  their  inward  parts  and  writing 
it  in  their  hearts.  Here  we  have  the  same  principle,  antecedent 
divine  action,  reaching  to  the  roots  of  man's  spiritual  nature,  and 
producing  knowledge  of  God  and  observance  of  his  covenant,  prior 
to  the  "discipline  and  heavenly  training,"  through  which  alone,  if 
we  are  to  credit  this  new  Biblical  theology,  such  a  moral  subjec- 
tive state  could  be  produced.  Such  is  Christ's  estimate  of  this 
change  and  of  the  necessity  of  it,  prior  to  all  spiritual  action  on 
the  part  of  the  soul,  that  he  compares  it  to  the  change  that  shall 


16  DR.  BRIGGS'  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

take  place  at  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  "  The  hour  is  coming, 
and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God, 

and  they  that  hear  shall  live Marvel  not  at  this,  for  the 

hour  is  coming  when  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice, 
and  shall  come  forth,  those  who  have  done  good  unto  the  resur- 
rection of  life,  and  those  who  have  done  evil  unto  the  resurrection 
of  condemnation."  John  v.  25-29.  In  Ephesians  i.  and  ii.,  the 
apostle  employs  this  same  figure  of  the  resurrection,  to  illustrate 
the  mighty  revolution  that  takes  place  in  all  the  elements  of  man's 
moral  nature,  when  he  is  quickened  from  his  natural  estate  of 
spiritual  death,  into  one  of  spiritual  life.  He  compares  the  change 
to  the  change  which  took  place  when  God  raised  Christ  from  the 
dead,  and  set  him  at  his  own  right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places, 
far  above  all  principality  and  power  and  might  and  dominion  and 
every  name  that  is  named,  not  only  in  this  world,  but  also  in  that 
which  is  to  come.  The  apostle  seems  to  labor  for  language  to 
convey  to  the  Ephesians  some  conception  of  the  greatness  of  the 
power  by  which  a  sinner  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  is  made  alive 
and  united  with  Christ  in  all  the  stages  of  his  elevation,  from  the 
tomb  of  Joseph  to  the  throne  of  God,  in  the  heavenly  places.  It 
is  evident  that  the  apostle  did  not  write  this  account  of  this  spir- 
itual change  under  the  inspiration  of  the  "ethical  and  religious 
philosophy"  which  teaches  that  the  moral  excellence  which  such 
a  change  implies  comes  only  by  discipline  and  heavenly  training. 
Dr.  Briggs  enumerates  several  barriers  which  have  been  erected 
by  ecclesiastics  and  dogmaticians,  between  the  people  and  "  the 
theology  of  the  Bible  pure  and  simple ; "  but  this  barrier  of  his  own 
Pelagian  "ethical  and  religious  philosophy"  stands  erect  and 
frowning  between  himself  and  the  vital  doctrine  of  the  new  birth, 
as  propounded  by  Christ  liimself  and  his  apostles.  Here  again  he 
is  in  a  strait  between  the  two.  He  must  abandon  his  organific 
theological  principle,  or  abandon  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  regen- 
eration— a  doctrine  so  clearly  expounded  in  the  Standards  to  which 
he  had  set  his  hand  and  seal  on  the  day  of  his  inauguration. 

5.  Few  of  the  singular  propositions  of  this  singular  Inaugural 
have  drawn  forth  so  much  criticism  as  its  avowal  of  the  doctrine  of 
"progressive  sanctification  after  death."    "There  is,"  we  are  told, 


DR.  BRIG08    BIBLIOAL  THEOLOGY,  1  7 

"no  autliority  in  the  Scriptures,  or  in  the  creeds  of  Christendom, 
for  the  doctrine  of  inunediatc  sunctification  at  death.  .  . 
Progressive  sanctifieation  after  death  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible 
and  the  church."  Before  giving  expression  to  this  doctrine  Dr. 
Briggs  had  subscribed  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Standards 
on  this  subject,  which  is  briefly  thus  given  in  tlie  Shorter  Cate- 
chism :  "  The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in 
holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory;  and  their  bodies  be- 
ing still  united  to  Christ,  do  rest  in  their  graves  till  the  resurrection.'' 
Dr.  Briggs  tells  us  that  "there  is  no  authority  in  the  creeds  of 
Christendom  for  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctitication  at  death." 
Well,  here  is  one  of  the  chief  creeds  (if  Christendom,  and  one,  t(»o, 
which  he  had  subscribed  a  few  minutes  before  he  made  this  state- 
ment, which  affirms  what  he  denies  on  this  very  point.  It  says 
that  "the  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in 
holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory;"  while  he,  after 
affirming  in  the  most  solemn  manner  that  this  was  a  part  of  his 
faith,  immediately  tells  his  auditors  that  such  doctrine  is  contained 
in  no  creed  of  Christendom!  He  even  in  a  footnote  refers,  in 
proof  of  this  statement,  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  XIII.,  a 
chapter  which  treats  of  sanctification  in  this  life,  while  he  gives 
no  hint  of  the  fact  that  Ciiap.  XXXII.  expressly  affirms  what  ho 
denies,  viz.,  that  the  souls  of  the  righteous  are  at  death  made 
perfect  in  holiness.  Such  treatment  of  these  immortal  Standards 
can  only  serve  to  shake  confidence  in  the  cause  it  is  designed  to 
serve.  Dr.  Briggs'  "ethical  and  religious  philosophy"  demands 
a  progressive  sanctification,  as  sanctitication,  according  to  its 
teaching,  comes  only  through  discipline  and  heavetdy  training, 
either  here  or  hereafter.  Hence  our  Standards  must  give  way  to 
his  Pelagian  "ethical  and  religious  ]>hilos()phy,"  and  fis  the  be- 
liever is  imperfect  in  this  life,  he  must  be  subjected  to  ethical  and 
religious  discipline  in  the  future  state.  Here  is  the  key  to  his 
pod-viortevi  sanctitication.  His  theory  is  not  determined  by  "tiio 
theology  of  the  Bible  pure  and  simple,"  but  by  the  fundamental 
canon  of  the  Pelagian  heresy. 

Having  seen  the  l»earing  of  Dr.  Ihiggs'  "ethical  and  religious 
philosophy  "  upon  the  chief  facts  and  features  of  the  economy  of 


18  DR.  BRIGGS'  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

redemption,  let  us  examine  the  principle  underlying  it,  as  ex- 
pounded by  himself.  This  principle,  he  informs  us,  is  that  "right- 
eousness and  moral  excellence  come  only  by  discipline  and  heav- 
enly training."  In  other  words,  moral  qualities  come  into  being 
only  through  the  moral  activities  of  moral  agents,  ftnd  can  have 
no  existence  prior  to  such  exercise  of  the  moral  faculties.  Against 
such  Pelagian  dogmatism  it  is  here  claimed  that  it  is  one  of  the 
commonplaces  of  ethical  and  religious  philosophy — that  all  moral 
and  religious  action,  in  order  to  be  recognized  as  such,  must  proceed 
from  moral  and  religious  principles.  Such  is  the  verdict  of  sound 
moral  science  and  sound  religious  philosophy.  They  both  reiter- 
ate the  verdict  of  Scripture,  that  the  tree  is  known  bj'  its  fruit,  and 
that  an  evil  tree  cannot  bring  forth  good  fruit,  nor  a  good  tree  evil 
fruit.  The  order  ordained  by  God  is,  first  make  the  tree  good, 
and  then  its  fruit  will  be  good.  A  good  man  out  of  the  good 
treasure  of  his  heart  bringeth  forth  good  things,  and  an  evil  man 
out  of  the  evil  treasure  of  his  heart  bringeth  forth  evil  things,  for 
it  is  out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the  mouth  speaketh. 

This  is  Scripture,  it  is  Biblical  theology,  and  it  is  "ethical  and 
religious  philosophy"  as  well.  It  would  be  recognized  as  the 
truth  on  the  subject  the  wide  world  over.  In  the  judgment  of  the 
race,  actions  flow  from  principles,  and  moral  actions  from  moral 
principles.  So  obvious  is  this  relation  of  principle  to  action,  that 
all  men  recognize  it  in  their  judgment  of  the  actions  of  their  fel- 
low-men. An  action  is  never  adjudged  bad  or  good  apart  from 
the  principle  l)y  which  the  agent  has  been  actuated.  The  agent 
himself  is  judged  of  as  morally  good  or  morally  bad  according  to 
the  principle  revealed  in  his  actions.  The  moral  quality  revealed 
in  the  action  is  ever  regarded  as  having  its  habitat  in  the  moral 
agent,  and  as  constituting  part  and  parcel  of  his  moral  character. 
On  this  assumption  are  based  all  forecasts  of  the  actions  of  indi- 
viduals. We  venture  to  predict  the  character  of  the  actions  of 
particular  individuals,  and  write  out,  on  their  behalf,  certificates, 
because  of  our  faith  in  the  principles  by  which  their  actions,  as 
far  as  known  to  us,  have  been  governed. 

Besides,  the  principle  involved  in  this  discussion  is  recognized 
in  all  righteous  jurisprudence.     No  jury  will  convict  an  accused 


DR.  BIU008    BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY.  19 

party  on  tlie  ground  of  an  overt  act  pure  and  simple.  Take,  for 
example,  the  case  of  one  act-used  of  murder.  The  prosecution 
must  not  only  prove  that  A  has  killed  li,  but  nujst  prove  that  A 
was  moved  thereto  hy  malice  aforethought,  and  that  the  deed  of 
blood  was  the  outcome  of  such  cherished  malice,  if  the  defence 
can  prove  that  A  acted  unthinkingly,  or  that  he  acted  in  defence 
of  his  own  life  or  of  the  lives  of  others,  no  righteous  jury  will 
find  a  verdict  of  guilty  against  the  accused.  Indeed,  it  was  on 
this  principle  that  the  cities  of  refuge  were  instituted  in  Israel. 
They  were  appointed  for  the  protection  of  the  man  who  might 
have  slain  his  neighbor  unwittingly,  and  who  had  imt  hated  him 
in  time  past.  When  a  case  of  this  kind  occurred,  and  the  slayer 
succeeded  in  reaching  one  of  these  cities  bef<»re  he  was  overtaken 
by  the  avenger  of  blood,  he  was  safe  until  the  congregation  de- 
cided concerning  his  guilt  or  innocence.  The  point  to  be  decided 
by  those  who  investigated  the  case  was  the  one  in  question  here. 
Was  the  act  the  result  of  premeditated  malice,  or  was  it  done  un- 
wittingly and  without  cherished  hatred  ?  It  is  manifest  that  this 
entire  institution  was  based  upon  the  principle  that  overt  acts 
have,  in  themselves,  no  moral  character,  as  good  or  evil,  but  take 
their  character,  not  onl^'  from  their  matter,  but  also  fr<'m  the 
characteroftlie  motives  and  springs  of  action  which  give  them  birth. 
This  principle  is  so  plain  in  itself  and  is  so  intimately  interwoven 
with  the  institutions  of  the  Bible  and  of  civilized  nations,  that  one 
feels  like  apologizing  for  occupying  time  in  stating  and  defending 
it.  The  oidy  excuse  for  <loing  so  is,  that  our  new  professor  of  Bi- 
blical theology  has  failed  to  discover  it  in  the  Bible,  and  has  ac- 
cepted in  its  stead  its  ethical  and  religious  antagonist.  But  if  the 
principle  now  estaldished  be  valid,  what  becomes  (»f  Dr.  Briggs* 
theology,  which  is  l>uilt  upon  the  principle  that  "righteousness 
and  moral  excellence  come  only  by  discipline  and  heaveidy  train- 
ing?" The  higher  criticism  is  ever  blasting  of  its  science  and 
philosophy,  but  its  claims  to  scientitic  or  philosophical  rank,  if  we 
are  to  judge  of  them  by  this  specimen,  are  certainly  not  well 
founded.  The  principle  avowed  is  in  direct  conflict  with  one  of 
the  most  clearly  established  principles  of  "ethical  and  religious 
philosophy,''  and  as  we  have  seen,  if  recognized  within  the  sphere 


20  DR.  BRIGGS'  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

of  the  remedial  economy  of  grace,  would  supersede  the  necessity 
of  the  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  applying  the  redemption  pur- 
chased by  Christ.  As  Dr.  Briggs  in  his  remarkable  book  entitled 
"  Whither,"  concedes  a  high  place,  even  the  locus  pj^imarius,  in 
the  future  federation  or  future  union  of  the  churches  of  Christen- 
dom, to  the  Latin  or  Eoman  Church,  he  was,  perhaps,  indicating 
the  concessions  he  is  ready  to  make  to  that  church  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  original  state  of  man.  That  church  holds  that  origi- 
nal righteousness  was  an  admirable  gift  bestowed  upon  man  sub- 
sequent to  his  creation.  He  was  man,  possessing  all  the  essential 
attributes  of  man,  prior  to  the  bestowal  of  this  admirable  gift ;  and, 
notwithstanding  the  absence  of  this  gift,  and  despite  the  tendency 
of  the  lower  powers  of  his  constitution  to  rise  in  rebellion  against 
the  higher,  he  was  innocent  and  sinless.  There  is  not  time  to 
point  out  Rome's  reason  for  thus  representing  man's  original  state 
as  purely  negative,  further  than  to  say  that  the  position  is  essen- 
tial to  her  doctrine  of  works  of  supererogation ;  for  if  the  subjec- 
tive estate  of  concupiscence  which  underlies  and  mars  all  man's 
moral  activities  is  to  be  taken  into  account  in  judging  of  his  mo- 
ral achievements,  there  is  not  much  hope  of  his  attaining  a  posi- 
tion of  moral  excellence  which  transcends  the  requirements  of  the 
moral  law  and  leaves  a  surplus  to  be  funded  for  the  benefit  of 
others,  as  the  church,  as  the  administratrix  of  the  grace  of  God, 
may  in  her  wisdom  decide.  There  is,  however,  this  difference  in 
favor  of  the  Romish  view  as  compared  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Inaugural.  Rome  teaches  that  righteousness  was  bestowed  upon 
the  first  man  as  an  admirable  gift,  while  Dr.  Briggs  denies  the 
possibility  of  righteousness  coming  in  any  way  save  through 
means  of  discipline  and  heavenly  training.  His  concession  to 
Rome,  therefore,  is  a  vain  concession.  She  will  not  accept  even 
of  the  position  of  preeminence  he  is  willing  to  concede  to  her,  on 
the  condition  that  she  shall  tolerate,  in  the  symbol  of  the  future 
federal  organization,  a  principle  which  involves  the  denial  of  her 
pi-erogative  to  infuse,  through  the  medium  of  the  sacrament  of 
baptism,  a  grace  which  constitutes  the  subject  of  it  righteous  be- 
fore God.  This  leads  to  an  examination  of  what  the  Inaugural 
propounds  on  the  subject  of  the  authority  of  the  church. 


DR.  BRIGG    BEBLIOAL  THEOLOGY.  21 

"There  are,"  wo  are  told,  "historically  three  threat  fountains  of 
Divine  authority — the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  Reason."  Having 
specitied  these  as  the  three  great  liistoric  fountains  of  Divine  au- 
thority, Dr.  Briggs  singles  out  the  church  from  its  secondary  place 
in  the  enumeration  and  sets  it  in  the  forefront  as  follows:' 

"  1.  The  xiuthority  of  the  Church. — Tiie  majority  uf  Christians 
from  the  Apostolic  age  have  found  God  through  the  church. 
Martyrs  and  saints,  fathers  and  sclioolmen,  the  profoundest  intel- 
lects, tlie  saintliest  lives,  have  had  this  experience.  Institutional 
Christianity  has  been  to  them  the  presence  chamber  of  God.  They 
have  therein  and  thereby  entered  into  communion  with  all  saints. 
It  is  ditticult  for  many  Protestants  to  regard  this  experience  as 
any  other  than  pious  illusion  and  delusion.  But  what  shall  we 
say  of  a  modern  like  Newman,  who  could  not  reach  certainty, 
striving  never  so  hard,  through  the  Bible  or  the  reason,  but  who  did 
find  Divine  authority  in  the  institutions  of  the  church  ?  Shall  we 
deny  it  because  it  may  be  beyond  our  experience  i  If  we  have  not 
seen  God  in  institutional  Christianity  it  is  because  the  ciuirch  and 
its  institutions  have  so  enveloped  themselves  to  us  with  human 
conceits.  Divine  authority  has  been  so  encased  in  the  authority 
of  popes  and  councils,  prelates  and  priests,  ecclesiastics  and  theo- 
logians, "that  nuiltitiides  have  been  unable  to  discern  it,  and  these 
mediators  of  redemption  have  so  obtruded  tiiemselves  in  the  way 
of  devout  seekers  after  God  that  they  could  not  find  God." 
(Pp.  24-25). 

According  to  Dr.  Briggs,  the  church  is  one  oi  the  ''tiiree  great 
fountains  of  Divine  authority."  The  proof  ho  gives  of  this  claim 
is,  that  "  the  majority  of  Christians  from  the  Apostolic  age  have 
found  God  through  the  church.'"  It  is  difficult  to  see  the  con- 
nection between  the  proof  and  the  claim.  Does  it  follow  from 
the  fact  that  men  "  have  found  God  through  the  church"  tiuU  the 
church  is  one  of  the  "three  great  foutitains  of  Divine  authority?" 
It  is  one  thing  to  find  God  through  the  instrumentality  of  the 
church,  and  another,  and  a  very  different  thing,  to  accept  him  on 
the  authority  of  the  church.  To  accept  God  upon  tiie  authority 
of  the  church  is  not  to  exercise  true  fuitii.  To  do  so  wore 
simply  to  repose  one's  faith  upon  tiie  church  iiorself.     This  would 


22  DK.  BRIGGS'  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

not  be  true  faith.  Genuine  faitli  rests  upon  higher  ground.  It 
believes  God.  "  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto 
him  for  righteousness."  "  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave 
his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should 
not  perish, 'but  have  eternal  life."  "Ye  believe  in  God,  believe 
also  in  MeP  From  Genesis  to  Revelation  tliere  is  no  instance  of 
a  command  or  a  counsel  to  believe  in  the  church,  or  to  believe 
anything  on  the  mere  authority  of  the  church.  Neither  prophet 
nor  apostle  ever  pointed  to  himself  as  the  object  of  faith  or  as 
speaking  in  his  own  name.  The  call  the  church  has  been  com- 
missioned to  give  precludes  the  possibility  of  her  accepting  any 
such  objective  position.  The  call  slie  is  to  give  is  a  call  to  "  re- 
pentance towards  God  and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  and 
the  faith  and  obedience  of  him  who  accepts  that  call  termi- 
nates, not  on  the  church,  but  upon  God  as  he  is  revealed  in 
Christ. 

The  case  of  Newman  cited  in  confirmation  of  this  claim  to  di- 
vine authority  on  behalf  of  tlie  church,  while  it  puts  his  meaning 
beyond  doubt,  is  very  far  from  establishing  his  position.  The 
passage  he  quotes  from  Newman's  Apologia  points  to  a  very 
different  conclusion.  Newman  says,  in  this  very  passage :  "  I  was 
not  conscious  to  myself  on  my  conversion  of  any  difference  of 
thuught  or  of  temper  from  what  I  had  before.  1  was  not  con- 
scious of  firmer  faith  in  the  fundamental  truths  of  lievelation  or 
of  more  self-command ;  I  had  not  more  fervor;  but  it  was  like 
coming  into  port  after  a  rough  sea ;  and  my  happiness  on  that 
score  remains  to  this  day  without  interruption."  The  ol)ject  of 
Dr.  Briggs  is  to  magnify  the  authority  of  the  church,  and  to  help 
him  in  this  glorification  of  her  authority  he  cites  the  case  of  New- 
man, who,  he  says,  "  Could  not  reach  certainty,  striving  never  so 
hard,  through  the  Bible  and  the  reason,  but  who  did  find  divine 
authority  in  the  institutions  of  the  church."  His  witness,  how- 
ever, is  no  sooner  in  the  witness-box  than  he  testifies  that  he  had 
found  salvation  ere  ever  he  had  entered  into  the  portals  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  "Whatever  else  he  found  within  her  pale  he  did 
not,  if  we  are  to  accept  his  own  testimony,  find  a  firmer  faith  in 
the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity.     He  had  as  firm  a  faith  in 


DR.   BRIGGS    BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY,  23 

these  truths  before  he  abandoned  Protestantism  for  Roman  Cath- 
olicism as  he  liad  afterwards.  How  does  this  testimony  prove 
that  Newman  found  in  the  clnirch  what  he  failed  to  find  throuj^h 
the  Bible  or  the  reason  ?  Surely  a  man  who  has  a  firm  faith  in 
the  fundamental  truths  of  Ilevelation  has  found  GcxI,  and  as  New- 
man possessed  sucii  faith,  as  he  tells  us  ho  did,  prior  to  his  con- 
version to  Kome,  wherever  else  he  found  that  faith,  it  was  not 
through  the  instrumentality  of  her  institutions  or  her  authority. 

It  is  not  the  object  of  this  criticism  to  iji;nore  (»r  set  aside  the 
testimony  of  the  church.  The  object  is  to  clear  this  subject  of  the 
province  of  the  church  in  the  economy  of  grace  from  the  confu- 
sion in  whifh  it  has  been  involved  in  this  singular  Inaugural. 
Even  were  it  true  that  the  church  is  one  of  the  three  great  foun- 
tains of  divine  authority,  the  question  must  of  necessity  arise, 
what  is  meant  by  the  church  ?  According  to  the  Inaugural,  the 
idea  of  the  church  is  merged  in  the  general  vague  conception  of 
what  the  author  calls  "  institutional  Christianity."  To  martyrs 
and  saints,  fathers  and  schoolmen,  the  profoundest  intellects  and 
the  saintlicst  lives,  "institutional  Chrit^tianity  has  been  the  pres- 
ence chamber  of  God."  There  is  certainly  need  of  discrimination 
here,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  this  Inaugural.  On  the  con- 
trary, its  author  employs  the  term  in  a  sense  well  fitted  to  perplex 
and  confound  his  hearers,  lie  makes  it  embrace  the  Church  of 
Home,  and  as  we  have  just  seen,  informs  us  that  Newman  found 
in  her  institutions  that  certainty  and  divine  authority  which  he 
could  not  find  through  the  Bible  or  reason,  though  Newman  him- 
self tells  us  in  the  very  passage  relied  on  that  he  had  found  a  firm 
faith  in  the  fundamental  truths  of  Revelation  before  his  conver- 
sion to  the  Romish  Church.  Scott's  Force  of  Truth  and  Scott's 
Commentary  were  instrumental  in  imparting  to  him  a  faith  in  the 
fundamental  truths  of  revelation  which  was  not  made  firmer  by 
the  ministrations  of  Rome. 

Newman's  case,  therefore,  cannot  be  citeil  to  prove  the  doi-trine 
of  the  Inaugural,  that  the  church  is  one  of  "  the  three  great  foun- 
tains of  divine  authority."  It  wjis  not  on  the  authority  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  that  Newman  accepted  the  fundamental  truths 
of  revelation.      There  were  more  reasons  for  saying  that  New- 


24  DR.  BRIGGS'  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

man's  faith  rested  on  the  authority  of  Thomas  Scott,  whose  forci- 
ble presentation  of  truth  and  expositions  of  the  Bible  convinced 
his  intellect  and  won  the  confidence  of  liis  lieart.  It  is  time  that 
these  eulogies  of  Kome  through  compliments  to  Newman  were 
brought  to  an  end,  and  that  Protestants  ceased  to  use  his  hymn, 
"  Lead,  kindly  light,"  which  is  simply  the  record  of  his  progress 
Homeward.  The  part  taken  by  Rome  in  the  salvation  of  New- 
man cannot,  for  a  moment,  be  put  in  comparison  with  the  service 
rendered  him  by  Scott.  Scott's  administration  was  primary  and 
antecedent,  Rome's  secondary  and  ex  post  facto.  If  there  is  to  be 
any  claim  to  divine  authority  advanced  for  either,  the  priority 
certainly  belongs  to  Scott  and  not  to  Rome.  But  neither  Scott 
nor  Rome  can  be  recognized  as  a  fountain  of  divine  authority. 
Whatever  of  truth  he  learned  from  Scott  was  invested  with  an 
authority  which  was  not  imparted  to  it  by  Scott.  The  funda- 
mental truths  of  revelation  have  their  origin  in  no  finite  foun- 
tain, whether  individual  or  corporate.  Their  sole  fountain  is  the 
infinite  mind  of  the  infinite  Jehovah ;  and  from  that  fountain  no 
one  save  the  Spirit  of  God  can  bring  them  forth.  This  the  Spirit 
has  done,  and  by  his  inspiring  agency  has  placed  them  on  record. 
The  relation  of  the  church  to  this  record  is  not  that  of  a  fountain 
to  the  streams  that  issue  from  it,  but  that  of  a  herald  whose  busi- 
ness is  to  cry  "Ho!  every  one  that  thirsteth,  come  ye  to  the  wa- 
ters, and  he  that  hath  no  money,  come  ye,  buy  and  eat,  yea  come, 
buy  wine  and  milk,  without  money  and  without  price."  To  speak 
of  the  church  as  the  fountain  of  authority  is  to  confound  the 
herald  with  the  waters  to  which  she  is  commissioned  to  invite  the 
thirsty.  Rome,  and  her  imitators  in  Lux  Mundl^  may  claim  for 
the  church  the  prerogative  of  placing  the  stamp  of  authority  upon 
the  Word  of  God,  and  may  thus  claim  to  be,  as  the  author  of  the 
Inaugural  describes  her,  a  fountain  of  divine  authority ;  this  is  to 
reverse  the  relation  which  obtains  between  the  church  and  the 
word.  The  word  itself  is  the  sole  fountain  of  divine  authority, 
and  the  church  possesses  no  authority  which  she  has  not  received 
from  the  one  divine  fountain  of  the  divine  word.  Her  function 
is  ministerial  and  not  magisterial.  She  can,  on  her  own  authority, 
enact  no  law  to  bind  the  conscience ;  she  can  make  overture  of 


DR.  BRIGGs'   BIULICAL  THEOLOGY.  25 

no  promise  to  the  acceptance  of  faith,  for  which  she  cannot  adduce 
the  testimony  of  the  written  word.  Her  functions  are  executive 
and  not  legislative,  and  the  organization  that  forgets  this  distinc- 
tion, and  arrogates  to  itself  legislative  prerogatives,  is  usurping,  as 
Rome  has  done,  the  royal  prerogatives  of  the  sole  King  and  Head 
of  the  church. 

But  what  our  author  concedes  to  Rome  with  one  hand,  he  takes 
away  with  the  other.  In  the  very  same  paragraph  in  which  he 
represents  her  as  impsirting  to  Newman  that  certainty  and  assur- 
ance of  Divine  authority  which  he  coidd  not  reach  tlirougii  the 
Bible  or  reason,  he  immediately  prefers  against  her  the  following 
charge :  "  Divine  authority  has  been  so  encased  in  the  authority 
of  popes  and  councils,  prelates  and  priests,  ecclesiastics  and  theo- 
logians, that  multitudes  have  been  unable  to  discern  it;  and  these 
mediators  of  redemption  have  so  obtruded  themselves  in  the  way 
of  devout  seekers  after  God  that  they  could  not  find  him."  How- 
are  the  two  ends  of  this  paragraph  to  l)e  reconciled  i  In  the  same 
breath  we  are  told  that  Newman  found  certainty  and  Divine  au- 
thority in  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  then  we  are  told  that  this 
Divine  authority  was  so  encased  in  the  authority  of  popes  and 
councils,  prelates  and  priests,  ecclesiastics  and  theohtgians,  that 
multitudes  have  been  unal)le  to  discern  it;  and  that  these  medi- 
ators of  redemption  have  so  obtruded  themselves  in  the  way  of 
devout  seekers  after  God  that  they  could  not  find  him.  If,  then, 
Newman  found  Divine  autiiority  in  Rome,  he  nmst  have  found  it 
by  turning  a  deaf  ear  to  popes  and  councils,  prelates  and  priests, 
ecclesiastics  and  theologians,  and  by  ignoring  those  mediators  of 
redemption  which  she  obtrudes  in  the  way  of  devout  seekers  after 
God.  That  is,  he  found  in  Rome  that  which  he  eould  not  find 
within  the  pale  of  Protestantism,  l)y  clearing  out  of  his  pathway 
popes  and  councils,  prelates  and  priests,  ecclesiastics  and  theo- 
logians, and  the  whole  array  of  her  mediators  of  redemption! 
How  much  of  Rome  was  left  to  instruct  him  after  such  clearance 
it  would  be  ditlicult  to  determine.  Strii)ped  of  those  accessories, 
Rome  is  not  Rome.  Without  her  popes  and  councils,  and  ])rc- 
lates  and  priests,  and  ecclesiastics  and  theologians,  and  mediator.-  of 
redemption,  she  is  no  longer  distinguishable  from  that  Pnttestantism 


26  DK.  BRIGGS'  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

within  whose  pale,  under  the  teaching  of  Thomas  Scott,  he  found 
that  firm  "faith  in  the  fundamental  truths  of  revelation"  which, 
notwithstanding  all  tiie  liio;her  preroi^atives  claimed  for  her  bj  the 
author  of  this  Inaugural,  Newman  himself  confesses  he  was  unable 
to  increase. 

One  of  the  sources  of  obscurity  and  confusion  exhibited  in  this 
Inaugural  is  the  lack  of  clear  definition  of  terms.  This  is  very 
manifest  in  the  author's  vague  use  of  the  term  church.  If  the 
church  be,  as  he  affirms,  a  great  fountain  of  Divine  authority,  it  is 
certainly  a  matter  of  vital  importance  for  those  who  are  in  search 
of  Divine  authority,  that  they  should  be  very  definitely  informed 
regarding  what  is  meant  by  the  church.  It  is  true  Dr.  Briggs 
quotes  on  this  point  the  Confession  of  Faith,  which  gives  one  of 
the  best  definitions  of  the  church  that  has  ever  been  framed  by 
uninspired  men;  but  singularly  enough,  he  omits  the  first  clause 
of  the  passage  specified,  that  clause  on  which  the  whole  ecclesi- 
ology  of  the  Westminster  divines  is  built;  that  clause  in  which 
they  define  the  invisible  church  as  consisting  of  "the  whole  num- 
ber of  the  elect  which  have  been,  are,  or  shall  be  gathered  in  one, 
under  Christ  the  Head  thereof."  This  is  a  grave  omission,  for 
this  is  the  Scriptural  ideal  of  the  church,  and  all  external  organi- 
zations are  recognized  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  true  church  only 
upon  the  assumption  that  their  members  are  members  of  tiiis  in- 
visible mystical  body  of  Christ.  It  is  to  this  body  that  all  the 
promises  are  made,  and  to  it  alone  belong  all  the  prerogatives  and 
attributes  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  the  church.  Even  grant- 
ing then  that  the  church  is  a  "great  fountain  of  Divine  authority" 
it  does  not  follow  that  this  is  true  of  the  several  external  organiza- 
tions bearing  the  name  of  church.  Dr.  Briggs  has  omitted  to  tell 
his  audience  what  the  Westminster  divines  afiirm  about  all  such 
organizations  erring.  They  teach  that  they  may  err,  and  have 
erred,  and  it  is  needless  to  say,  that  both  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New,  the  outward  visible  organization  has  erred 
from  the  truth,  even  in  relation  to  questions  affecting  the  foundation 
of  the  economy  of  Redemption.  Was  the  Jewish  external  organ- 
ization a  "great  fountain  of  Divine  authority"  when  through  its 
Sanhedrin  it  condemned  our  Lord  to  death  for  claiming  to  be  the 


DK.   HKIGGS'   HIIILICAL  THEOLOGY.  27 

Soil  of  the  Living  God  ?  Was  the  Church  of  Rome  "h  great  foun- 
tain of  Divine  authority"  when  through  its  head,  Pope  Liherius, 
it  placed  tlie  stamp  of  its  authority  upon  the  Arian  heresy,  or 
when,  in  later  times,  it  condemned  to  the  stake  the  servants  of 
God  because  they  contended  earnestly  for  the  faith  delivered  once 
for  all  to  the  saints,  or  refused  to  recognize  tiie  blasphemous  claims 
advanced  in  l»ehalf  of  the  Roman  See  ?  Or,  to  come  to  our  own 
day,  was  Rome  a  "great  fountain  of  Divine  authority"  when, 
through  the  Vatican  Council,  it  passed  the  dogma  of  the  infalli- 
V>ility  of  the  pope  ?  Or,  to  come  still  closer  to  the  practical  work- 
ing of  the  theory  propounded  in  this  Inaugural  regarding  church 
authority,  how  is  it  to  be  reconciled  with  the  action  of  the  direc- 
tors of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  who  have  resisted  the  de- 
cision of  the  General  Assembly  of  tiie  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States,  and  have  resolved  to  adhere  to  their  action  in  trans- 
ferring Dr.  Briggs  to  the  newly-instituted  Chair  of  Biblical  The- 
ology in  that  seminary?  Certainly  neither  the  direct(»rs  nor  Dr. 
Briggs  can  regard  that  Assembly  as  a  great  fountain  of  Divine 
authority.  From  the  action  of  the  directors  in  taking  legal  coun- 
sel we  are  warranted  in  the  inference  that  they,  at  least,  whatever 
the  author  of  the  Inaugural  may  tiiink,  regard  the  courts  of  civil 
law  as  a  higher  fountain  of  authoritv  than  the  courts  of  the  church. 

The  theory,  therefore,  won't  work,  and  the  reason  it  won't  work 
is  tliat  it  is  unscriptural,  and  is  in  conflict  with  the  convictions  of 
all  intelligent  Christians.  No  intelligent  Christian  accepts  the 
decision  of  any  ecclesiastical  assembly  simply  on  the  ground  of  its 
authority.  Its  decisions  nuist  be  establisiied  by  appeal  to  ti>e 
Word  of  God,  and  it  is  only  when  thus  fortified  that  any  intelli- 
gent Christian  bows  to  it  as  authoritative.  In  other  words,  the 
ultimate  authority  in  the  churcii  is  Christ,  her  King  and  Head, 
and  his  word  alone  has  any  authority  in  her  councils  or  decisions. 
To  submit  to  the  decisions  or  commands  of  any  church,  whether 
Papal  or  Protestant,  simply  on  the  ground  of  her  own  authority 
is,  as  our  standards  teach,  to  betray  true  liberty  of  C(»n8<-iencc. 

The  primary  mistake  in  the  construction  of  this  Inaugural  is  to 
be  found  in  its  divisions.  Its  author  tells  us  that  "tluM-o  arc  his- 
torically three  great  fountains  of  Divine  authority — the  P>il)le,  the 


28  DR.  BRIGGS'  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

church,  and  the  reason."  These  are,  according  to  Dr.  Briggs, 
"the  sources  of  Divine  authority."  It  would  have  prevented  much 
confusion  of  thought,  as  well  as  nauch  erroneous  dogmatism,  had 
he  taken  as  his  subject  "the  sources  of  theology"  and  given  as  his 
divisions  the  Bible,  external  nature,  and  the  moral  constitution  of 
man.  As  his  subject  was  theology,  such  should  have  been  his  all 
dominant  theme  throughout,  and  these  subdivisions  of  its  sources 
would  have  enabled  him  to  keep  his  theme  ever  present  through- 
out the  entire  discussion.  Instead  of  this  natural  common-sense 
method  of  dealing  with  the  subject  proper  to  his  chair,  he  throws 
theology  aside,  and  substitutes  for  it  the  "  sources  of  Divine  au- 
thority," and  gives,  as  one  of  his  subdivisions,  "the  church," 
which  turns  out  to  be  an  equivocal  term,  as  in  defining  it  he  omits 
that  clause  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  which  is  the  key  to  all  genu- 
ine Protestant  ecclesiology,  and  apart  from  which,  and  the  limita- 
tions it  implies,  any  visible  organization  which  may  choose  to 
arrogate  to  itself  ecclesiastical  prerogatives,  may  call  itself  a 
church,  and  claim  to  be  a  fountain  of  Divine  authority. 
Had  he  adopted  the  course  suggested,  his  theme,  from  begin- 
ning to  end,  would  have  been  the  knowledge  of  God  and 
Divine  things,  as  revealed  in  the  Bible,  in  external  nature,  and 
in  the  moral  constitution  of  man.  Following  this  method  he 
would  have  had  a  fine  opportunity  to  magnify  Biblical  theology 
to  his  heart's  content,  pointing  out  the  fact,  that  there  is  nothing 
of  God  or  of  Divine  things  revealed  in  external  nature  or  in  the 
moral  constitution  of  man  that  is  not  given,  again  and  again,  in 
the  Bible,  and  stamped  with  the  seal  of  Divine  authority.  To 
come  down  from  this  high  platform  to  talk  of  the  church,  as  un- 
defined, as  a  source  of  Divine  authority,  exalting  it  above  the 
Bible  itself,  was  to  belittle  the  whole  subject,  and  to  clothe  with 
confusion  the  entire  discussion.  There  is  nothing  proper  to  the 
chair  or  to  the  occasion  which  would  not  have  come  under  one  or 
the  other  of  the  above  divisions.  The  only  disadvantage  incident 
to  such  a  method  of  treatment  would  have  been  that  under  it  Dr. 
Briggs  could  not  have  availed  himself  of  the  occasion  to  impeach 
before  the  general  public  all  traditionalism,  all  ecclesiasticism,  and 
all  dogmatism,  and  all  dogmaticians.    This  disadvantage,  however, 


DR.  BRIGG8    BIBLICAL  THKOLOOY.  29 

would  have  been  more  than  counter-hiihmced  by  this  mctliod,  as  it 
would  have  kept  him  from  perpctratin<^  the  palpable  contradiction 
of  condemning  ecclesiasticism,  traditionalism,  and  dDgmatism,  and 
then  turning  round  and  pronoiincing  a  panegyric  upon  the  Clnirch 
of  Rome,  whose  bad  preeminence  in  all  these  departments  has 
justified  her  enrolment  as  the  mystery  of  iniquity. 

There  is  an  all-pervading  characteristic  of  tiiis  Inaugural  wiiich 
impresses  one  unfavorably,  namely,  its  spirit  of  self-confi<ient 
boasting  and  avowed  contempt  of  the  theological  labors  of  almost 
all  theologians  save  those  who  have  had  the  honor  of  taking  ])art 
in  his  own  theological  education.  On  page  41  we  have  the  follow- 
ing account  of  the  critical  exploits  of  the  "Higher  Criticism:" 
*' We  have  undermined  the  breastworks  of  traditionalism;  let  us 
blow  them  to  atoms.  We  have  forced  our  way  tlirough  the  ob- 
structions ;  let  us  remove  them  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  that 
no  man  hereafter  may  be  kept  from  tiie  Bible,  but  that  all  may 
freely  enter  in,  search  it  through,  and  find  God  enthroned  in  its 
very  centre.''  The  "  we"  here  means  the  critics,  but  the  Inaugural 
does  not  tell  us  what  wing  or  arm  of  the  critical  array  has  had  the 
honor  of  these  marvellous  critical  achievements.  Of  course  this 
"we"  must  be  regarded  as  embracing  Dr.  Briggs  himself,  aiui  if 
we  are  to  accept  his  own  estimate  of  his  critical  prowess,  he  must 
have  taken  a  foremost  place  in  these  mining  operations,  and  he  is 
sure  to  he  heard  of,  if  not  seen,  after  the  critical  dynamite  has 
exploded. 

These  critics  are  in  their  operations  somewhat  like  the  men  of 
dynamite  in  the  army  of  the  Irish  Nationalists,  who  thought  that 
by  exploding  a  few  of  their  cartridges  in  the  Tower  of  London 
and  other  public  places  they  could  cause  the  British  Emj)ire  to 
totter  to  its  overthrow.  The  advocates  of  this  species  of  warfare, 
however,  have  found  to  their  cost  that  the  "  resources  of  civiliza- 
tion are  not  yet  exhausted."  And  so  may  these  bctasting  critics, 
even  with  Dr.  Briggs  bearing  in  their  rere  tlie  critical  explosive  in 
the  one  hand,  and  his  Pelagian /'«.y<?«  in  the  other,  find  when  the 
noise  of  the  explosion  has  subsided  and  the  smoke  has  cleared 
away,  that  the  old  historic  fortress  is  still  there,  and  that  they 
themselves,  after  imperilling  their  critical  lives  and  limbs,  have 


30  DK.   BRIGGS'  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

been  sliut  up  in  some  critical  keep  under  the  custody  of  some  com- 
petent critical  warder.  Walls  that  have  withstood  Y4T  such  min- 
ing operations  as  Dr.  Briggs  boasts  and  threatens  are  very  likely 
to  withstand  the  74:8th  explosion,  however  large  the  critical  cart- 
ridge, and  however  critically  it  may  be  laid  Such  is  the  Biblicai 
theology  which  Prof.  Bruce,  of  the  Free-Churcli  College,  Glasgow 
commends  to  the  churches  of  these  lands !  It  is  unbiblical,  un- 
scientific, uncritical,  unethical,  and  untlieological,  and  rests  upon  a 
Pelagian  fundamental  as  its  ultimate  organitic  principle. 


Date  Due 

■^CAllIt 

0  IS-** 

vuLi  \ 

CULTi 

u 

.1^ 

^•n  TV 

1 

'-    =4^ 

*    rt  r     'C^ 

,.uLlV 

^ 

■■HM 

